Opinion
# 2017-040-050 Claim No. 128788 Motion No. M-89705
04-28-2017
JAMES SEELEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
James Seeley, Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Pro se Claimant's motion for summary judgment, declaratory judgment, and default judgment denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-040-050 |
| Claimant(s): | JAMES SEELEY |
| Claimant short name: | SEELEY |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 128788 |
| Motion number(s): | M-89705 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | James Seeley, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 28, 2017 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
For the reasons set forth below, Claimant's Motion for summary judgment, declaratory judgment, and a default judgment, in his favor is denied.
This pro se Claim, which was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court on November 9, 2016, alleges that the State was negligent and negligently supervised Claimant, seeks damages in the amount of $10,000,000, and Claimant further asserts that he served a Notice of Intention to File a Claim upon the Attorney General on October 3, 2016, and filed the Notice of Intention in the Office of the Clerk of the Court on the same date (Claim, ¶¶ 3, 4, 11, 13). The Notice of Intention is attached to Claimant's Claim and is part of his filed Claim. It asserts that, on July 29, 2016, Claimant was working in the mess hall at Bare Hill Correctional Facility when he suffered a chemical burn. He went to emergency sick call and was treated for burns to both arms and hands.
First, the Court notes that Claimant has not asserted nor established that the State is in default. Therefore, that portion of the Motion is denied. Next, Claimant seeks a declaratory judgment. "As a court of limited jurisdiction, the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction to grant strictly equitable relief" (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005], citing to Ozanam Hall of Queens Nursing Home v State of New York, 241 AD2d 670, 671 [3d Dept 1997]; Psaty v Duryea, 306 NY 413, 416 [1954]). Consequently, this Court is without power to issue a declaratory judgment (see Matter of Milner v New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 4 Misc 3d 221, 225 [Ct Cl 2004], affd 24 AD3d 977 [3d Dept 2005]).
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy to be granted sparingly and only where no material issue of fact is demonstrated in the papers related to the motion (see Crowley's Milk Co. v Klein, 24 AD2d 920 [3d Dept 1965]; Wanger v Zeh, 45 Misc 2d 93 [Sup Ct, Albany County 1965], affd 26 AD2d 729 [3d Dept 1966]). CPLR 3212(b) requires that a motion for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings (Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338 [1974]). In support of his Motion, Claimant did not submit a copy of the Claim or Answer. The failure to include all the pleadings in support of a motion for summary judgment requires that the motion be denied, regardless of the merits of the motion (Senor v State of New York, 23 AD3d 851 [3d Dept 2005]; Bonded Concrete, Inc. v Town of Saugerties, 3 AD3d 729 [3d Dept 2004], lv dismissed 2 NY3d 793 [2004]; Deer Park Assocs. v Robbins Store, 243 AD2d 443 [2d Dept 1997]; CPLR 3212[b]).
CPLR 3212(b) also requires that the motion be supported by "available proof." "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case" (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]). "Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 324; see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra at 853).
However, assuming, arguendo, that Claimant had supported his Motion by including a copy of all the pleadings, the Court further finds that Claimant failed to make the required prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. He has not set forth any facts to establish he is entitled to judgment. To establish a prima facie case of negligence, Claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the credible evidence that: (1) Defendant owed Claimant a duty of care; (2) a dangerous condition existed that constituted a breach of that duty; (3) Defendant either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof and failed to alleviate the condition within a reasonable time; and (4) such condition was a substantial factor in the events that caused the injury suffered by Claimant (see Pipp v Guthrie Clinic, Ltd., 80 AD3d 1014, 1015 [3d Dept 2011]; De Luke v City of Albany, 27 AD3d 925, 926 [3d Dept 2006]; Kampff v Ulster Sanitation, 280 AD2d 797, 797 [3d Dept 2001]; Patrick v State of New York, 11 Misc 3d 296, 320 [Ct Cl 2005]). This, Claimant has failed to do.
Therefore, based upon the foregoing, Claimant's Motion for summary judgment, declaratory judgment, and a default judgment in his favor, is denied.
April 28, 2017
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant's Motion for summary judgment, declaratory judgment and a default judgment: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion, Statement in Support & Exhibits attached 1 Affirmation in Opposition 2 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer